Jay Dyer has had a lot of influence in his critique of Thomism and its influence of Thomism, Scholasticism and its influence on Western Modernism and even when I considered myself a hardline Thomist a Latin traditionalist I thought he made some good points. Now in looking eastward I understand where Jay is coming form even more. He can come off as a bit smug or arrogant, but I think he is sincere. Like Socrates he thinks the unexamined life is not worth living and though I am not trying to say is a Socrates, I am saying Socrates came off to the Athenians in a negative way, too, for his quesitioning of things. I think a lot of Orthodox, especially those coming form the East can understand this article though:

I would like to say in defense of Western Christian philosophy, lest I sound like a bitter Western Catholic, that it did do a lot of good a subject far too deep to get into here. The Middle Ages, contrary to the propaganda, preserved classical thought, not hid it or kept man in a Dark Age until the Renaissance and Enlightenment. There really was a Dark Age, but it is exageratted by secularists and materialists. Must of it was organic and a natural result of the barbarianism of Western Europe, which after the fall of Rome remained to some degree in the darkness of his barbarianism. Roman civilzation, influenced by Hellenistic thought like all of the world conquered by Alexander, had its influence on Western Europe and thus preserved it, but it was not until around the 13th century that Western Europe really began raising like a phoenix from the ashes of the Roman Empire. But the philosophy and rationalism of the medieval scholastics were an influence on the secular rationalists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The Middle Ages had some problems and maybe the Enlightenment showed us the problems of that age, but they certainly were not as bad as the secularists make us out them out to be and the Church preserved learning, not hid it. Still, I do think medieval Christian scholasticism was an influence on post-medieval rationalism and humanism.

Logged

I don't got one of those scanner thingees to put my John Hancock on here. Here is my Social Security Number though: XXX-XX-XXXX. Just figure out what the Xs mean.

Jay Dyer has had a lot of influence in his critique of Thomism and its influence of Thomism, Scholasticism and its influence on Western Modernism and even when I considered myself a hardline Thomist a Latin traditionalist I thought he made some good points. Now in looking eastward I understand where Jay is coming form even more. He can come off as a bit smug or arrogant, but I think he is sincere. Like Socrates he thinks the unexamined life is not worth living and though I am not trying to say is a Socrates, I am saying Socrates came off to the Athenians in a negative way, too, for his quesitioning of things. I think a lot of Orthodox, especially those coming form the East can understand this article though:

But the philosophy and rationalism of the medieval scholastics were an influence on the secular rationalists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

A couple of points. 1) You have to be careful how you use the word "rationalism" because it has come to have so many different meanings. If you mean the idea that reason is equal to or superior to faith, St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejected this. 2) Many of the Enlightenment philosphers did not have first hand acquaintance with St. Thomas' work, which was the apex of scholastic thought. Rather, people Descrates, Locke, etc. learned about scholastic philosophy and theology from later medievals, who represented the decay of the movment.

I will grant that. Aquinas certainly did not think human reason above divine revelation. I do think an argument can be made with the problems Scholasticism has caused in the West, though. I guess one could blame neo-Thomists, but I think the root is still there, even if Aquinas was far from malicious and even made a lot of good points in defense of Christianity.

Logged

I don't got one of those scanner thingees to put my John Hancock on here. Here is my Social Security Number though: XXX-XX-XXXX. Just figure out what the Xs mean.

Also to be fair to the West I would say if nothing else there needs to be a fair move way from Thomas Aquinas and to other thinkers, including other Scholastics. But also the Early Church Fathers and other theological and philosophical writers. Because there is a tendency, especially among more conservative or traditional Latins to be so Thomistic that any attempt at a critique of him is attacked as pride and arrogance, as if Thomas Aquinas should be the very voice of Latin thought rather than a single voice. I understand his voice forms that of the leader of Scholasticism, but Western Catholic education would do well to not try to look at everything from so scholastic a standpoint or means because a lot of important points on Trinitarian theology and so forth are lost by scholasticism, I think. That may not be the intention but also it is not the best means to fight modernism like some Latins think. Actually the modernists just use a liberal form of Thomistic thought to justify themselves. A more simplified and mystical approach may be better against the pride of secular rationalism where reason has been made into a goddess even though the defenders of rationalism are complete materialists and therefore cannot give any merit to reason since it is clear invisible, that is spiritual. They try to do so by talking about chemicals in the brain and all that, but the soul animates the body as the first mover so the brain does not really prove anything. It is why brain death does not prove the lack of quality of the life of a fetus or person in a coma or vegetable state. The question is metaphysical: What gives life to a person? The soul or some part of the body?

Logged

I don't got one of those scanner thingees to put my John Hancock on here. Here is my Social Security Number though: XXX-XX-XXXX. Just figure out what the Xs mean.

Also to be fair to the West I would say if nothing else there needs to be a fair move way from Thomas Aquinas and to other thinkers, including other Scholastics. But also the Early Church Fathers and other theological and philosophical writers. Because there is a tendency, especially among more conservative or traditional Latins to be so Thomistic that any attempt at a critique of him is attacked as pride and arrogance, as if Thomas Aquinas should be the very voice of Latin thought rather than a single voice.

I agree with you here. As much as I love the Angelic Doctor in as far as philosophy goes, I much prefer the Byzantine approach to theology.

Actually the modernists just use a liberal form of Thomistic thought to justify themselves. A more simplified and mystical approach may be better against the pride of secular rationalism where reason has been made into a goddess even though the defenders of rationalism are complete materialists and therefore cannot give any merit to reason since it is clear invisible, that is spiritual.

I think that you are presenting a false division between Thomism and Mysticism. San Juan de la Cruz was a Thomist, as well as a great Latin mystic. Additionally, I don't see how there can be a connection between Aquinas and Modernists. Aquinas taught that faith is superior to reason, and that only God's revelation to man is absolutely certain, since God cannot lie, nor be deceived.

They try to do so by talking about chemicals in the brain and all that, but the soul animates the body as the first mover so the brain does not really prove anything. It is why brain death does not prove the lack of quality of the life of a fetus or person in a coma or vegetable state. The question is metaphysical: What gives life to a person? The soul or some part of the body?

Aquinas agrees with you that it is the soul which animates the body. What is the controversy here?

Scholasticism seems to have the problem of starting with empiricism I think is what the article is saying ultimately. It may not be the intention to end with empiricism but ultimately I think that is what happens. Of course there were so many other factors I suppose in the Renaissance and Enlightenment I suppose, including, as much as my fellow monarchists do not wish to admit, the corruption of the royalty, the nobility and the bourgeois, something the rebels against Christendom exaggerate but which must be admitted. I myself am more a fan of monarchy than democracy, but I think a mix of all forms with a fatherly monarch who inherits the throne by blood to avoid, an upper house of aristocratic legislators, and a democratic house of representative plebeians is best. I am even a socialist and lean towards a mix of democratic and nationalist socialism, though I do not mean I am a neo-Nazi--the whole eugenics behind Hitler's ideas is disgusting and demonic. But I think a socialist state that is too centralized can easily become corrupt while there has to be some sort of centralization in the person of a monarch. I hate to use Wikipedia, but it is a convenient source. The article on right wing socialism says:

Quote

Right-wing socialism in France[edit source | editbeta]

Charles Maurras and National Syndicalism[edit source | editbeta]French right-wing nationalist and monarchist Charles Maurras held interest in merging his nationalist ideals with Sorelian syndicalism as a means to confront liberal democracy.[26] Maurras famously stated "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well made glove fits a beautiful hand".[27] Georges Sorel himself was impressed by the significant numbers of "ardent youth" that enrolled in Maurras' Action Française and turned to Maurrasian nationalism.[25] In 1911, on the issue of Sorelian syndicalism, Georges Valois announced to the Fourth Congress of Action Française that "It was not a mere accident that our friends encountered the militants of syndicalism. The nationalist movement and the syndicalist movement, alien to another though they may seem, because of their present positions and orientations, have more than one common objective."[26] Valois and Sorel founded the Cercle Proudhon in 1911, an organization that Valois declared to provide "a common platform for nationalists and leftist antidemocrats".[28] Cercle Proudhon announced that it supported the replacement of bourgeois ideology and democratic socialism with a new ethic of an alliance of nationalism with syndicalism, as those "two synthesizing and convergent movements, one at the extreme right and the other at the extreme left, that have begun the siege and assault on democracy".[28] Cercle Proudhon supported the replacement of the liberal order with a new world that was "virile, heroic, pessimistic, and puritanical—based on the sense of duty and sacrifice: a world where the mentality of warriors and monks would prevail".[29] The society would be dominated by a powerful avant-garde proletarian elite that would serve as an aristocracy of producers, and allied with intellectual youth dedicated to action against the decadent bourgeoisie.

So in my current political state as the citizen of the American Republic, I am working for a grassroots socialist welfare state. Keeping power close to the people as possible in regards to the socialism, a commonwealth of the people centralized in the federal state only so far as required. The question with this matter between states rights and the necessity of federalism in the United States is a difficult one for me. I am not a libertarian, but the federal government is way to strong and overbearing and Obama's "Healthcare Reform Act" is very problematic for various reasons, the biggest one being it will be more a burden on the worker than an aid to him. But the mainstream right is not offering much of a real solution and in my opinion this whole socialist healthcare plan of Obama is a sham of the false liberty provided to the dumbed down citizens by the disgusting one percent of banksters, the oligarchy on Wall Street. A simplified and seemingly great healthcare plan is just perfect for a stupid proletariat democracy who thinks they have liberty because they can vote but are really enslaved. It is disgusting. I myself hope to be a voice in the real democratic, grassroots socialism that does not immediately separate itself from right wing and Christian principles. Nationalism is problematic in an Anglo-American state like ours opposed to somewhere like France or Russia, and so the difficulty becomes in how to bring about the socialism for the worker. I'll have to do my best in a secular and totally non-confessional state where there is no remote or slight relation to the Christian Church, either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, let along even Anglican or anything like that.

Logged

I don't got one of those scanner thingees to put my John Hancock on here. Here is my Social Security Number though: XXX-XX-XXXX. Just figure out what the Xs mean.

Scholasticism seems to have the problem of starting with empiricism I think is what the article is saying ultimately. It may not be the intention to end with empiricism but ultimately I think that is what happens. Of course there were so many other factors I suppose in the Renaissance and Enlightenment I suppose

These are not minor factors... The article really doesn't prove what it sets out to do, as it fails to adequately show the development 'from Thomism to western modernism'. Few of the steps in between are shown to be logically necessary. It is also odd how he claims Thomas' understanding of natural reason results in Humean skepticism, as if Thomas did not limit natural reason precisely to demonstrate the superiority of faith and revelation. The article is interesting, but flawed.

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not. The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers. And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc.,He was factored out of it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I believe most of the Orthodox have never heard about Thomism and/or Scholasticism and those who are read only Orthodox sources with anti-Western bias. No wonder the discussion turns into beating dead horses.

I believe most of the Orthodox have never heard about Thomism and/or Scholasticism and those who are read only Orthodox sources with anti-Western bias. No wonder the discussion turns into beating dead horses.

Au contraire, a lot of the Orthodox who write about Thomism/Scholasticism have escaped from it, with or without "anti-Western bias."

As long as the Vatican continues to bet on that horse, it will continue to take a beating.

Btw, in the US there is a lively debate of Natural Law in the legal system and society, so the discussion doesn't stay just in Academia.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Arguments like Jay Dyer's (the Thomistic schema is precisely what led to the Enlightenment and the subsequent deism and atheism of the West) fail to persuade because it overreaches by a thousand miles. The question of absolute divine simplicity and divine freedom is a fascinating and difficult question. It may well in fact be that there is a real systematic problem there. It may be that the Byzantine theology of God is intellectually more satisfying and coherent than the Thomist theology of God. But that doesn't mean that the doctrine of divine simplicity is responsible for modern deism and atheism. As soon as the thesis is proposed one immediately sees its absurdity. The world doesn't work like this. Just think about it for a moment. Are we to believe that it was more influential than, say, the rise of modern science, with its practical elimination of divine causality from our consideration of the world or the rise of the market economy or the European religious wars or whatever. Historians will no doubt propose various hypotheses to explain the rise of deism and atheism; but no one, except Orthodox apologists, are going to argue that a the doctrine of divine simplicity is responsible for it.

But even if we were to seriously entertain the thesis, consider all the challenges. How many 2nd millennium Christian theologians drew the inference that because God is absolutely simple, therefore he was not free to not create the world? How many concluded that the world was necessary to his existence and identity? And perhaps most importantly, how did all of this impact preaching and catechesis, both by Catholics and Protestants? Have you read the sermons and commentaries of Luther, for example? I imagine that he also theoretically believed in ADS, but the God he proclaimed is a living, active, and utterly free God. He certainly wasn't going to allow a theological conundrum like ADS to prevent him from proclaiming the God of the Bible, and I suspect that was true for the overwhelming majority of preachers in both the Latin and Protestant churches. It's one thing to be scholastic in the academy; it's quite another thing to be scholastic in the pulpit.

I wish Orthodox apologists would stop promoting implausible theses like this. I know Jay means well, but this kind of argument does more harm than good.

Arguments like Jay Dyer's (the Thomistic schema is precisely what led to the Enlightenment and the subsequent deism and atheism of the West) fail to persuade because it overreaches by a thousand miles. The question of absolute divine simplicity and divine freedom is a fascinating and difficult question. It may well in fact be that there is a real systematic problem there. It may be that the Byzantine theology of God is intellectually more satisfying and coherent than the Thomist theology of God. But that doesn't mean that the doctrine of divine simplicity is responsible for modern deism and atheism. As soon as the thesis is proposed one immediately sees its absurdity. The world doesn't work like this. Just think about it for a moment. Are we to believe that it was more influential than, say, the rise of modern science, with its practical elimination of divine causality from our consideration of the world or the rise of the market economy or the European religious wars or whatever. Historians will no doubt propose various hypotheses to explain the rise of deism and atheism; but no one, except Orthodox apologists, are going to argue that a the doctrine of divine simplicity is responsible for it.

The same bent of mind responsible, Father, for reducing Christian Trinitarian theology into "the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity" also reduced the theology of Christian revelation into philosophical "laws," which in time and development of doctrine dispensed with the need of a god-they were self operating.

The Divine Law is within God, and does not exist apart from him. If God didn't exist then there wouldn't be a Divine Law, and therefore no Eternal Law and Natural Law for their existence is predicated on the Divine Law.

back to the debate between Voluntarism and Intellectualism/Rationalism. God lies beyond reason, and hence it does not bind him, as you (and Grotius) would like.

There have been many gods of nature. On this issue they do not differ much from the God Who Created the universe (except that He is I AM).

Thomistic Natural Law presupposes both a Divine Law and an Eternal Law, neither of which could exist without a deity. How could atheistic Darwinism establish a Divine or Eternal Law?

Exactly.

Not really. The Darwinists claim eternal laws which they claim apply before, during and after the Big Bang. They claim to discover these laws by their observations, "The rational creatures participation in the Eternal Law."

Marx was quite convinced, for instance, that his rational creation (at least in his mind) of the vanguard party of the Communists participated "in the Eternal Law," and had to do so without "opiate of the people," i.e. in an atheistic framework.

But even if we were to seriously entertain the thesis, consider all the challenges. How many 2nd millennium Christian theologians drew the inference that because God is absolutely simple, therefore he was not free to not create the world? How many concluded that the world was necessary to his existence and identity? And perhaps most importantly, how did all of this impact preaching and catechesis, both by Catholics and Protestants? Have you read the sermons and commentaries of Luther, for example? I imagine that he also theoretically believed in ADS, but the God he proclaimed is a living, active, and utterly free God. He certainly wasn't going to allow a theological conundrum like ADS to prevent him from proclaiming the God of the Bible, and I suspect that was true for the overwhelming majority of preachers in both the Latin and Protestant churches. It's one thing to be scholastic in the academy; it's quite another thing to be scholastic in the pulpit.

Have you heard what their seminaries are putting in their pulpits lately?

I wish Orthodox apologists would stop promoting implausible theses like this. I know Jay means well, but this kind of argument does more harm than good.

I'll have to reread the piece after a nap and coffee to comment.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The author, Fr. Theophanes (Constantine), is a monk on Mt. Athos who converted to Orthodoxy from Eastern Rite Catholicism. In this work, Fr. Theophanes addresses the issue of how anthropology developed in the East versus the anthropology developed in the West by Aquinas and others, how the Orthodox tradition of the Prayer of the Heart is based on the pastristic anthropology of the East, and why the language used in Orthodoxy to talk about the Prayer of the Heart does not make sense in the context of Western and Thomist anthropology. It is a very large work of 3 volumes, but you may find it interesting. Volume 1 lays the foundation regarding patristic and Western anthropologies:

Fr. Theophanes prayed the Jesus Prayer as an Eastern Rite Catholic but later realized that he really couldn't enter into it and make progress unless he was in the Orthodox Church and developed a proper Orthodox phronema or consciousness.

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not. The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers. And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc.,He was factored out of it.

And yet, the Catholic version of Natural Law is absolutely dependent on God. Aquinas describes Natural Law as the "rational creatures participation in the Eternal Law." The eternal law, he explains is God's plan for creation. The fact that renaissance philosophers separated natural law from God says nothing about the Catholic view. All it says is that renaissance philosopers were bad at philosophy.

Isa, do you not believe in the "law written on their hearts" to which St. Paul refers?

I'm not Isa but I think the point of all this critique of "natural law" is that the concept is inherently religious ad not at all "neutral" or whatever other quasi-synonymous term its apologists use. Like there is no big and obvious "natural" case against the use of a condom by a married couple somehow written in the physical structure of the universe that physicists can can observe in the same way as the law of gravity or whatever.

I wouldn't say it is religious, but it does presuppose the existence of God.

No, it does not. The Stoics, from whom you got it, worked without one.

For Aquinas, God's existence can be demonstrated by reason. I realize that that is not a popular view on this forum, but at least in Aquinas' mind, (and St. Paul's for that matter), one does not have to belong to a particular religion to have knowldge of good and evil. That doesn't mean that that knowledge comes easy.

That being said, Aquinas argues that because it is easy to make errors in our moral reasoning, God gave us divine revelation of the moral law in the scriptures, particularly in the ten commandments.

hence those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for it, as the Fathers indicate above.

The Catholic view of Natural Law does depend on the existence of God. That is a clear indication that the Catholic view is different from the Stoic view.

Only in the way that the Vatican's Scholasticism differs from Islam's.

But that, like your comment, isn't on point: those of us who have the Law and the Gospel have no use for any "Natural Law" except for polemics/apologetics against non-believers. And even then, that Natural Law differs from the Vatican view of Natural Law.

But back to you view of Natural Law: evidently it doesn't depend on a God, because during the course of the Renaissance and the transformation of the West's "Natural Law" into its International Law and Human Rights etc.,He was factored out of it.

And yet, the Catholic version of Natural Law is absolutely dependent on God.

The Catholic version does.

As for your claims for the Scholastic version, Grotius dedicated his work De jure belli ac pacis to "His Most Christian Majesty" (as your supreme pontiffs called him) Louis XIII:

Quote

Its content owed much to Spanish theologians of the previous century, particularly Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez, working in the Catholic tradition of natural law.

Including its most famous line:

Quote

Et haec quidem quae iam diximus, locum aliquem haberent etiamsi daremus, quod sine summo scelere dari nequit, non esse Deum, aut non curari ab eo negotia humanaWhat we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness: that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to Him.

The eternal law, he explains is God's plan for creation. The fact that renaissance philosophers separated natural law from God says nothing about the Catholic view. All it says is that renaissance philosopers were bad at philosophy.

even if they are bastards, fathers cannot deny their spawn.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't understand why you insist on misrepresenting Catholic Natural Law Theory.

never do.

As for the scholastic take, I just expose its own misrepresentation.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Taking a look at this Jay Dyer's website, I'm again curious/disturbed about the weird subset of Orthodox internet apologists who adopt Romanides-inspired grand historical narratives of why the West went wrong and are also fascinated with conspiracy theories and 'alternate history'. It speaks a lot to the mindset behind this kind of polemic.

Taking a look at this Jay Dyer's website, I'm again curious/disturbed about the weird subset of Orthodox internet apologists who adopt Romanides-inspired grand historical narratives of why the West went wrong and are also fascinated with conspiracy theories and 'alternate history'. It speaks a lot to the mindset behind this kind of polemic.

Yes and no: Romanides' was right about the creation "Byzantium" in the West.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 11:36:54 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit, the Catholic position on the natural law. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself states,

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Not sure why you think Catholic Natural Law Theory is not dependent on God. I think you just like to say that in order to make try to make Catholics look bad.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit, the Catholic position on the natural law. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself states,

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Not sure why you think Catholic Natural Law Theory is not dependent on God. I think you just like to say that in order to make try to make Catholics look bad.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Oh but you know Isa by now... He never misses the opportunity to make the Catholic Church look bad, oh wait I mean "The Vatican". Even if he is completely mistaken about what he's saying, he will persist because the evil Vatican must be exposed before the Pope catches him and burns him at the stake

Logged

"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit the Catholic position on the natural law.

Didn't say it did.

As for the Scholastic position, which invites pagan politicians to join the company of the Prophets and Apostles: the quoting of pagan as a religious authority (the is what the CCC is, no?) just lays bare your assertion that "Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God." Evidently not. Otherwise your CCC wouldn't be quoting someone who didn't think so as an authority on it.

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Expanded mantra.Thomas' rationalism, pushed by his intellectualism, created out of whole cloth a universe where God was reduced to a number of principles of "Eternal Law." Once accomplished, his progeny decided that they didn't need Him, and embraced the pursuit of that "Eternal Law," leading to the Great Darkening a/k/a the "Enlightenment" and all that has proceeded from it.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Ah, the seeds of Deism.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit, the Catholic position on the natural law. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself states,

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Not sure why you think Catholic Natural Law Theory is not dependent on God. I think you just like to say that in order to make try to make Catholics look bad.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Oh but you know Isa by now... He never misses the opportunity to make the Catholic Church look bad, oh wait I mean "The Vatican". Even if he is completely mistaken about what he's saying, he will persist because the evil Vatican must be exposed before the Pope catches him and burns him at the stake

We are on good terms.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit, the Catholic position on the natural law. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself states,

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Not sure why you think Catholic Natural Law Theory is not dependent on God. I think you just like to say that in order to make try to make Catholics look bad.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Oh but you know Isa by now... He never misses the opportunity to make the Catholic Church look bad, oh wait I mean "The Vatican". Even if he is completely mistaken about what he's saying, he will persist because the evil Vatican must be exposed before the Pope catches him and burns him at the stake

We are on good terms.

Copts would disagree about who that man claims to be But Anyway I meant the Pope of Rome, His Holiness Pope Francis

Logged

"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit, the Catholic position on the natural law. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself states,

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Not sure why you think Catholic Natural Law Theory is not dependent on God. I think you just like to say that in order to make try to make Catholics look bad.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Oh but you know Isa by now... He never misses the opportunity to make the Catholic Church look bad, oh wait I mean "The Vatican". Even if he is completely mistaken about what he's saying, he will persist because the evil Vatican must be exposed before the Pope catches him and burns him at the stake

We are on good terms.

Copts would disagree about who that man claims to be

We are on good terms.His Holiness gave His Holiness a miter at his enthronement. And they were commemorated together.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You should see the video of HH presenting the miter to HH. We have a link here somewhere.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ok, so clearly isa has no interest in honest dialogue. For Catholics, Natural Law is absolutely and necessarily tied to God. We don't subscribe to any other form of natura law. If Isa wants to play word games he is free to do so. I'm out.

Responsibility issues.

Btw, the authority your CCC invokes on the existence of "Natural Law" didn't believe in God, certainly not the Christian One.

What is your point? Quoting a witness to the truth of the Natural Law, does not alter one bit, the Catholic position on the natural law. As St. Thomas Aquinas himself states,

"Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law." (ST, I-II, 91, 2).

Not sure why you think Catholic Natural Law Theory is not dependent on God. I think you just like to say that in order to make try to make Catholics look bad.

BTW, if it is unclear, the Eternal Law is God's provident plan for creation.

Oh but you know Isa by now... He never misses the opportunity to make the Catholic Church look bad, oh wait I mean "The Vatican". Even if he is completely mistaken about what he's saying, he will persist because the evil Vatican must be exposed before the Pope catches him and burns him at the stake

We are on good terms.

Copts would disagree about who that man claims to be

We are on good terms.His Holiness gave His Holiness a miter at his enthronement. And they were commemorated together.

That's fine but that has no bearing on what I said. Your guy is a claimant to the see of Alexandria in the eyes of the copts. Or as we westerners say, an Antipope Doesn't mean they cant be friendly towards each other though...

That's fine but that has no bearing on what I said. Your guy is a claimant to the see of Alexandria in the eyes of the copts. Or as we westerners say, an Antipope Doesn't mean they cant be friendly towards each other though...

I think it would be better to ask the Copts how they view HB Pope Theodoros vis a vis their own Pope. It's no secret that there's no formal communion between the two Churches (with all that entails), but there are extraordinarily good relations in spite of that. "Antipope" is probably not an accurate description except in a theoretical sense that doesn't reflect reality. Westerners are good at coming up with such things.

That's fine but that has no bearing on what I said. Your guy is a claimant to the see of Alexandria in the eyes of the copts. Or as we westerners say, an Antipope Doesn't mean they cant be friendly towards each other though...

I think it would be better to ask the Copts how they view HB Pope Theodoros vis a vis their own Pope. It's no secret that there's no formal communion between the two Churches (with all that entails), but there are extraordinarily good relations in spite of that. "Antipope" is probably not an accurate description except in a theoretical sense that doesn't reflect reality. Westerners are good at coming up with such things.

There is only true successor, the others are all pretenders or in this case of Popes, antipopes.This is far from the topic so i will leave it here

« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 05:37:34 PM by Wandile »

Logged

"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

That's fine but that has no bearing on what I said. Your guy is a claimant to the see of Alexandria in the eyes of the copts. Or as we westerners say, an Antipope Doesn't mean they cant be friendly towards each other though...

I think it would be better to ask the Copts how they view HB Pope Theodoros vis a vis their own Pope. It's no secret that there's no formal communion between the two Churches (with all that entails), but there are extraordinarily good relations in spite of that. "Antipope" is probably not an accurate description except in a theoretical sense that doesn't reflect reality. Westerners are good at coming up with such things.

Indeed they are.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

We are on good terms.His Holiness gave His Holiness a miter at his enthronement. And they were commemorated together.

That's fine but that has no bearing on what I said. Your guy is a claimant to the see of Alexandria in the eyes of the copts. Or as we westerners say, an Antipope Doesn't mean they cant be friendly towards each other though...

It goes further than that (your supreme pontiff knows that: which is why he insists he is commemorated by every church under the Vatican). But that's an issue between us Orthodox.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, sorry to have been away from the discussion for so long. I took it up on my blog in a series of posts. I did make quite the satire at Thomism, but was friendly and fair to it, I think. Of course my argument is not as well made as Jay Dyer's

I begin in Part 2 with Aquinas and move on through the rest. It is an essay my version of right wing socialism.